Conservative watchdog group Parents Television Council issued a dispatch denouncing CBS Corp.’s tentative plan to air Showtime content such as “Dexter” on CBS during the writers strike.

“CBS’ plan is purely based on corporate greed, not what’s good for families or in the public interest,” said PTC President Tim Winter. “These Showtime programs contain some of the most explicit content on television, period. Yet CBS has no qualms about putting shows that make heroes of serial killers and revel in sick, graphic violence or those that condone drug use and glorify drug dealers in front of millions of children and families on broadcast television. Despite that CBS and Viacom are now ‘separate,’ CBS is funneling in super-raunchy Viacom-owned premium cable content onto the CBS broadcast network … It is also another powerful example of why the rules concerning media consolidation must not be loosened.”

[Note: Showtime is actually a wholly owned subsidy of CBS Corp., not Viacom. The PTC caught its error and sent a corrected release].

CBS President and CEO Les Moonves mentioned the plan at the UBS Global Media & Communications Conference in New York on Tuesday. He noted that Showtime’s serial killer drama “Dexter” was considered a likely contender to lead the charge because the show fits CBS’s crime-drama brand (except, of course, that CBS’s crime protagonists tend to arrest murderers rather than dismember them).

“Dexter” is winning raves and breaking Showtime ratings records for its current second season. Though the crime drama has pitch black humor and is sporadically gory in a “’CSI’-gone-wild” kind of way, it likely has never been described as “super raunchy.”

"The programming will be edited to meet all network television broadcast standards, similar to the way theatrical movies have been edited for broadcast for many years," said a CBS spokesperson when told of the PTC statement.

Continues the PTC: “If CBS goes through with this plan, the PTC will certainly contact every sponsor of the programs.”

Thing is, in a sense CBS has already gone through with this plan. Last year the broadcast network aired the pilot for Showtime’s “Brotherhood.”

Conservative watchdog group Parents Television Council issued a dispatch denouncing CBS Corp.'s tentative plan to air Showtime content such as Dexter on CBS during the writers strike.

CBS' plan is purely based on corporate greed, not what's good for families or in the public interest, said PTC President Tim Winter. These Showtime programs contain some of the most explicit content on television, period. Yet CBS has no qualms about putting shows that make heroes of serial killers and revel in sick, graphic violence or those that condone drug use and glorify drug dealers in front of millions of children and families on broadcast television. Despite that CBS and Viacom are now separate,' CBS is funneling in super-raunchy Viacom-owned premium cable content onto the CBS broadcast network It is also another powerful example of why the rules concerning media consolidation must not be loosened.

[Note: Showtime is actually a wholly owned subsidy of CBS Corp., not Viacom. The PTC caught its error and sent a corrected release].

CBS President and CEO Les Moonves mentioned the plan at the UBS Global Media & Communications Conference in New York on Tuesday. He noted that Showtime's serial killer drama Dexter was considered a likely contender to lead the charge because the show fits CBS's crime-drama brand (except, of course, that CBS's crime protagonists tend to arrest murderers rather than dismember them).

Dexter is winning raves and breaking Showtime ratings records for its current second season. Though the crime drama has pitch black humor and is sporadically gory in a 'CSI'-gone-wild kind of way, it likely has never been described as super raunchy.

"The programming will be edited to meet all network television broadcast standards, similar to the way theatrical movies have been edited for broadcast for many years," said a CBS spokesperson when told of the PTC statement.

Continues the PTC: If CBS goes through with this plan, the PTC will certainly contact every sponsor of the programs.

Thing is, in a sense CBS has already gone through with this plan. Last year the broadcast network aired the pilot for Showtime's Brotherhood.

If parents have young children up late enough to watch Dexter, Weeds, or any other show of that sort which will most like be shown 9-10PM then we have other issues that they should deal with. They need to stop focusing on the companies and instead focus on the Parents ALLOWING their kids to watch these shows.

If parents have young children up late enough to watch Dexter, Weeds, or any other show of that sort which will most like be shown 9-10PM then we have other issues that they should deal with. They need to stop focusing on the companies and instead focus on the Parents ALLOWING their kids to watch these shows.

AMEN... I hate these stupid groups. Focus on your own kids... don't worry about policing others. Why should I be punished, because parents are not monitoring their kids?

The Showtime drama, in which Michael C. Hall plays a serial killer in Miami, would have to be edited to conform to CBS' standards.

A spokesman for CBS said that "as a matter of course," Showtime creates cleaner versions of its original series for syndication and other purposes. Hence it would not be difficult to arrive at a version of "Dexter" that could air on CBS. The same goes for Showtime's other originals, all of which are under consideration for possible CBS airings.

Didn't Showtime also do something similar with its early original series "Stargate SG-1" and "the Outer Limits" in the 1990's? Those series were tame and relatively easy to clean for syndication compared with the adult-themed heavy hitters on premium cable though. But ever since "The Sopranos" and "Sex & The City" hit the syndication jackpot on A&E and TBS, respectively, premium cable channels have always made sure there's a clean alternate shot to every gory and/or nude shot and/or suggestive dialogue that would be problematic to remove/censor for a potential network/cable TV run. While a cleaned-for-network "Dexter" might be passable on CBS it would still be a watered-down facsimile of the genuine article, which is so polished and near-perfect that the editing would amount to butchering. Mmmphh, butchering and "Dexter" go together like...

Who actually watches a movie on network TV, when the uncut uninterrupted unedited unrated original is available (either on premium channels months or years earlier, or on DVD)?

Language cleansing or not, commercials for soap, cars, beer, etc., every 7 minutes or so would would totally ruin the mood and rhythm of the "Dexter experience".

No kidding, I don't even watch movies on premium channels anymore, I'll wait until it's available on hires optical. With the advent of hires DVDs, watching films and watching TV have become an even more different entertainment experience for me than they ever have before.

No kidding, I don't even watch movies on premium channels anymore, I'll wait until it's available on hires optical. With the advent of hires DVDs, watching films and watching TV have become an even more different entertainment experience for me than they ever have before.

Is there that much of a difference between HD optical and the HD premium channels? Or do you just have to have a really big screen or projector to see any noticeable difference?

And regarding the CBS spokesman's statement above about how all Showtime's originals could be adapted for broadcast TV, I'd like to see what they'd do with 'Californication', or 'Weeds', or how they'd title '********' for that matter.

Is there that much of a difference between HD optical and the HD premium channels? Or do you just have to have a really big screen or projector to see any noticeable difference?

I am guessing by "hires optical" you guys are talking about HD DVD and Blu-ray. If you are then yes there is a difference. The pictures are much smoother and more detailed (IMO) and also, you have the ability to get very nice audio. I have a 61" and most of the time I can tell the difference between a movie on a premium HD channel and an HD disc. While the picture on the HD feeds are very nice at best, they cant beat the disc formats (IMO) as far as quality goes.

Is there that much of a difference between HD optical and the HD premium channels? Or do you just have to have a really big screen or projector to see any noticeable difference?

What Ph8te said, obviously the larger the screen the bigger the difference, but even on smaller screens the ability to render an image without the restriction of a low bitrate signal(with TV 18-19mbps, if you're lucky!) is definitely noticeable. Imagine seeing those HBO/SHO films that are usually around 8-14mbps given 25-35mbps worth of bandwidth, with peaks sometimes in 40's. It does make a difference. And the audio is just icing on the cake. TV simply can't compete. Probably the most noticeable thing you'll see is the retention of detail even during fluid, motion-filled scenes.

Try an experiment, watch closely an HBO movie and see what the image really looks like when the camera pans, you'll lose detail and the image can become blurry. With HD optical disc, and a decent transfer, you don't have that.

Seriously, with HD-DVD players at the $100 price point and a Netflix account, you really ought to give it a try, I'm certain you'll be happy with what you see.

"Dexter" can't work on CBS anymore than reruns of "Walker, Texas Ranger" could be a hit on SHOWTIME. The viewing public who are today paying to see "No Country For Old Men" at a movie theater aren't the same ones who paid to see "The Dukes of Hazzard" or "Wild Hogs". This is a case where the suits are blinded by dollars and ignoring the demographics, and more importantly, the intelligence and involvement of the "Dexter" audience. "Dexter" is a dark humored subtle and challenging puzzle, while "Walker, Texas Ranger" is as funny, nuanced and thought-provoking as a telegraphed swift kick to the groin in slow motion.

By the time they edit out all of the murdering, add all of the commercials, Dexter on Network TV might as well be called CSI: Miami II

Actually, it isn't that much of a stretch. This week's CSI: NY featured a magic act where the lady in the box was actually (well, TV actual) sawed in half, with the cut and gore and splatter pretty much exposed. Severed limbs and cut up cadavers is network staple fare these days.

OK, Lila would have to say "Pardon my thingys" but that's about it.

Mike Rife

The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also. -- Mark Twain

What Ph8te said, obviously the larger the screen the bigger the difference, but even on smaller screens the ability to render an image without the restriction of a low bitrate signal(with TV 18-19mbps, if you're lucky!) is definitely noticeable. Imagine seeing those HBO/SHO films that are usually around 8-14mbps given 25-35mbps worth of bandwidth, with peaks sometimes in 40's. It does make a difference. And the audio is just icing on the cake. TV simply can't compete. Probably the most noticeable thing you'll see is the retention of detail even during fluid, motion-filled scenes.

Try an experiment, watch closely an HBO movie and see what the image really looks like when the camera pans, you'll lose detail and the image can become blurry. With HD optical disc, and a decent transfer, you don't have that.

Seriously, with HD-DVD players at the $100 price point and a Netflix account, you really ought to give it a try, I'm certain you'll be happy with what you see.

Not to mention that Premium HD channels transmit the video feed at highly compressed 1080i or 720p signals. Whereas optical disc formats such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray encode all their movies at 1080p and at a high bit rate and of course there is the Lossless (uncompressed/or very low compression) audio you get from those discs.

Of course all this only matters if you have a half way decent home theater and nice surround sound setup. I got a 7.1 audio system with an HDMI 1.3 receiver and 65" 1080p display. The difference from Premium HD channels to HiDef disc is like night and day in my home theater.

All that being said, I still subscribe to and watch premium HD movies all the time. I have 1 TB on my DVR and usually stockpile movies that I don't own on disc on the hard drive.

It's amazing how the news of CBS potentially bringing "Dexter" to network TV and the leak of the two final episodes online has overshadowed conversation about last week's episode. Having just re-watched "There's Something About Harry" with the twist ending already known I had a grand time enjoying some of the gems of performances and little jokes here and there. Dexter's line about Deb blowing up if she found out about his secret addiction which "would be a waste of a perfectly good cop... (dramatic pause) and a sister" had me bending over from laughing so hard. Mazuka's nicknames that Doakes called him were also hilarious (and so X-rated there's no way this scenes makes it to CBS uncut) plus, as usual, "Dexter" repeats exceedingly well even if you already know the twists to the story.

FWIW today I also went to a local NYC store and bought their last two boxsets of "Dexter Season 1" as Christmas gifts for friends (with my DVD's of Season 2 as bonus) for $30 a pop. I've been keeping an eye at Best Buy, Circuit City and other retail stores' DVD shelves for "Dexter" Box Sets and they're always sold out. Either Showtime didn't make enough Box Sets to supply demand or these suckers are selling exceedingly well.

Boston Globe article about leading men in TV series that express/convey a lot of emotion with few actions and even fewer words. Guess who made the list?

"What they don't say speaks volumes
Michael C. Hall and Damian Lewis seize attention by making a lot out of the smallest gestures
By Matthew Gilbert, Globe Staff | December 9, 2007

At a time when TV dramas are overpopulated, it's unusual to find a lead actor on whom an entire series hinges. Kill any of the Gifted Ones on "Heroes," graduate any of the kids on "Friday Night Lights," fire any of the doctors on "Grey's Anatomy," including Grey, and you only have a sweeps event. Pull Michael C. Hall off "Dexter" and you've got an open time slot. Remove Damian Lewis from "Life" and you have the death of a cop show. And Hugh Laurie? Without him, "House" would collapse.

Hall, Laurie, and Lewis preside over their shows like conductors directing an orchestra. They don't just set the tone, they provide the moral tensions that drive the entire series forward. Their three characters - Hall's Dexter Morgan, Lewis's Detective Charlie Crews, and Laurie's Dr. Gregory House - are renegade types who toy with our sympathies and our judgment in every episode. Are they good men or evil men? Can individuals this untethered and independent actually be social pluses? All the action on these shows, all the matters of life and death and sickness and health, are there to serve the larger query about one person and our feelings toward him.

Unlike, say, "Shark," starring James Woods as a lawyer dealing with cases of the week, these shows transcend their genres. They do revolve around pressing mysteries that need solving, but they function primarily as character portraits. They use their respective genre conventions - Showtime's "Dexter" is a neo-noir thriller, NBC's "Life" a cop drama, and Fox's "House" a medical teaser - to follow their heroes off the psychic grid. And the actors have made these heroes worth following, and quite unimaginable in another actor's hands.

While Laurie's House is a showboat performance, awesome for its acerbic rants and flagrant puppeteering, Hall and Lewis play recessive figures who say more by what they don't say. They both cultivate shy, childlike demeanors, masking the dark cogitations within. Hall, in particular, has made Dexter into an enigmatic man-child, a big kid who seems to be staring, wide-eyed, at everyone around him.

Indeed, Hall has delivered the year's most stunning TV performance on "Dexter," which has two episodes left in its second season. With a minimum of expressiveness, Hall has turned Dexter into a vessel of both murderous guilt and extreme innocence. A serial killer who kills serial killers, Dexter is certainly a horrifying vigilante wreaking justice based on his own godlike judgments. He is capital punishment, doled out without due process. We see his blood lust, as he talks to his victims while cutting them to pieces. We know he's so dispassionate during his kills as to be inhuman.

But Hall also keeps that lost boy - the one who sat locked in a storage container with the body of his slaughtered mother for two days - close to the surface. He is so convincing as an adult-sized child, he persuades the viewer not to recoil from Dexter, to try and see Dexter's crimes from his point of view. Dexter is just struggling to be loyal to the "Code of Harry," which was devised by his late cop father, and which requires him to use his violence only on killers who've slipped the legal system. He's just trying to be a good son. In his interior monologues, so drolly delivered by Hall, Dexter still seems to be a teenager communing with the all-knowing Harry, even as he learns about Harry's imperfections. He's like a teenage superhero.

Dexter is so emotionally stunted, he has to employ reason to determine whether or not he's hurting his girlfriend Rita's feelings; he is infantile when it comes to sympathy. And yet he is a natural when it comes to Rita's children, who love him. "It's really not that hard to entertain a kid," he told co-worker Angel Batista a few weeks ago, when Angel was facing a day with his daughter. Dexter has his finger on the pulse of early vulnerability, despite his monstrosity, despite the fact that he is a tin man. The blood-letting Dexter would be comparable to Anne Rice's world-weary vampires, except that Dexter seems like he was born yesterday.

I feel confident saying that, as this extraordinarily tense season builds to a head, most fans of the show do not want Dexter to get caught. That's the great power of "Dexter," in the same way that our ambivalence about Tony Soprano opened up "The Sopranos" into something more morally interactive than most mob stories. If we weren't rooting for the Bay Harbor Butcher - Dexter - to evade imprisonment or death, "Dexter" wouldn't be presenting us with such a richly provocative philosophical opportunity.

And that's the great power of Hall's work, too, since he doesn't let Dexter become despicable or easily dismissible. He draws us into Dexter's internal logic, his unique sense of conscience. I don't much want to hiss when he's onto a fresh kill, and I admit to having mixed feelings when he sobered up at a 12-step program and stopped killing. He's everything that's evil - a bloodless murderer, a liar, a fraud - and yet, and yet. I like him."

Interesting article, that I think begs the question: "Are these three simply masters of their craft, or do the roles and writing just happen to fit them perfectly?" I'm certainly no acting theorist (if there is such a thing), but I tend to think that there is a happy coincidence where the actor, the role, and the fine writing happened to coincide. It just all came together perfectly. The result is great TV.

Agree. For some reason lightning struck on "The Sopranos" for all three key issues (acting/writing/premise) but not on "Brotherhood" (my opinion based on seeing a couple of episodes and not liking it one bit). Lightning strick on "Big Love" but not on "Meadowlands." Struck on "The West Wing" but not on "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" (both Aaron Sorkin shows). And so on and so forth. Let's just be thankful the stars aligned for "Dexter" to make it the towering achievement of quality TV that it has become.

Is anobydy here going to go to Sho.com after next week's finale to check this cast reuinion/reaction special? Has Showtime ever done anything like this before for one of its shows? I'd like to know if this will be a live, taped or chatroom-type event because it'd be great to save it on video if something remotely interesting is said/done.